DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
607 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
607 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are debating the precise wording to use when presenting overt acts from an indictment to a jury, specifically concerning the age of a victim. The core issue is how to handle discrepancies between the age listed in the indictment ('under 18') and the legally relevant age of consent ('17'), with proposals ranging from using general legal phrasing to modifying the specific age with the qualifier 'the indictment alleges'.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Attorney |
Speaker in a court proceeding, likely representing the defense, discussing the wording of an indictment regarding ages.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney |
Speaker in a court proceeding, likely representing the government, responding to Mr. Everdell's concerns about indict...
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by the attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach) and identified as THE COURT, presiding over the legal proc...
|
| Jane |
Mentioned hypothetically by Mr. Everdell as a placeholder name for a person in the indictment ("when Jane was under t...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned by Mr. Rohrbach as the party he represents, which would be fine with a proposed change to the indictment's ...
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Attorneys and a judge discuss how to phrase language from an indictment concerning the age of a victim for presentation to a jury. The debate centers on whether to use the specific age from the indictment (18), a more general legal phrase ('relevant age of consent'), or a different specific age (17) with the qualifier 'the indictment alleges'.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned by Mr. Everdell as part of a proposed phrasing for the indictment.
|
Relationships (3)
Both are attorneys participating in the same court case, representing opposing sides (defense and government), and are negotiating the wording of court documents with the judge.
Mr. Everdell, an attorney, addresses the judge as 'your Honor' and presents his legal arguments and suggestions to the court.
Mr. Rohrbach, an attorney, addresses the judge as 'your Honor' and presents the government's position on a legal matter.
Key Quotes (2)
"maybe instead of "under the age of 18," "when Jane was under the relevant age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction," or something to that effect."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Proposing alternative language for the jury instructions to avoid confusion about different ages in statutes versus the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
Quote #1
"I think for Counts One and Three, since the relevant age of consent I think everyone agrees is 17, the government would be fine with saying "under the age of 17," and we'd have to say "the indictment alleges" or something like that, because it would no longer be following the text of the indictment."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Responding to the defense's concern and offering a counter-proposal on behalf of the government.)
DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,569 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 51 of 95
LCI1MAX1
2789
LCI1MAX1
2789
1 MR. EVERDELL: Oh, yeah. Agreed, your Honor.
2 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes.
3 THE COURT: What do you have, Mr. Everdell?
4 MR. EVERDELL: So this is where it gets a little
5 complicated, your Honor. I mean, I know that in lines 11
6 through 22, we're listing -- and in the next page as well,
7 we're listing out the overt acts in the indictment. We're
8 listing them verbatim, but they're talking about ages, under
9 the age of 18, under the age of 18, and we've already talked
10 about how the ages are sort of different depending on the
11 statutes. That's one issue. Right. So we might want to
12 replace the -- instead of the ages -- and I know -- it's less
13 of an issue because I think we've agreed that the indictment is
14 not going back to the jurors, so they're not going to be
15 reading the language, but maybe instead of "under the age of
16 18," "when Jane was under the relevant age of consent in the
17 relevant jurisdiction," or something to that effect.
18 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, if I may. I understand the
19 concern the defense is raising. I think for Counts One and
20 Three, since the relevant age of consent I think everyone
21 agrees is 17, the government would be fine with saying "under
22 the age of 17," and we'd have to say "the indictment alleges"
23 or something like that, because it would no longer be following
24 the text of the indictment.
25 THE COURT: Yes. I mean, we could do "alleges" or
2 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes.
3 THE COURT: What do you have, Mr. Everdell?
4 MR. EVERDELL: So this is where it gets a little
5 complicated, your Honor. I mean, I know that in lines 11
6 through 22, we're listing -- and in the next page as well,
7 we're listing out the overt acts in the indictment. We're
8 listing them verbatim, but they're talking about ages, under
9 the age of 18, under the age of 18, and we've already talked
10 about how the ages are sort of different depending on the
11 statutes. That's one issue. Right. So we might want to
12 replace the -- instead of the ages -- and I know -- it's less
13 of an issue because I think we've agreed that the indictment is
14 not going back to the jurors, so they're not going to be
15 reading the language, but maybe instead of "under the age of
16 18," "when Jane was under the relevant age of consent in the
17 relevant jurisdiction," or something to that effect.
18 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, if I may. I understand the
19 concern the defense is raising. I think for Counts One and
20 Three, since the relevant age of consent I think everyone
21 agrees is 17, the government would be fine with saying "under
22 the age of 17," and we'd have to say "the indictment alleges"
23 or something like that, because it would no longer be following
24 the text of the indictment.
25 THE COURT: Yes. I mean, we could do "alleges" or
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016977
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document